DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

purchases and expenses and also based on the information collected from the assessee observed that the assessee company has arranged bogus expenses of Rs.24.24 crore which inter alia included bogus commission expenses also. When the assessee was confronted, it was submitted that these bogus losses have been arranged to cover up the inflated project value invoiced to TIL by Rs.26.55

HETAL RAKESH MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Hetal Rakesh Mehta Acit, Central Circle 1(2), 9/10, Vidya Nagar, 60 Feet Road, Vs. Pune Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – 400077 Pan: Ammpm9670L (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchases and consequent income arising from these transactions had already been fully disclosed and accounted for in the appellant's income tax return. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the failure of the Assessing Officer to provide the appellant with a copy

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

bogus LTCG in the returned income of the appellant's return income would lead to double addition" is found to be incorrect. The assessment orders in both the cases are enclosed with this letter for reference. Submitted. Yours Faithfully (S.R. BODHARE) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Jalgaon Enclosure:-As above” 15. He accordingly submitted that the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

bogus long term capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

bogus long term capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

bogus long term capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed

SHRI GANESH BHIVRAJ BHUTADA,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

purchase bills issued by the suppliers and the cheque payments made So however, there is no other evidence, namely, GRNs octroi receipts, delivery challans, etc which would show that the supplies were indeed made. Therefore, in such a situation, can the absence of cross-examination be fatal to the addition in question?, especially when at the initial stage, an opportunity

SHRI GANESH BHIVRAJ BHUTADA,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

purchase bills issued by the suppliers and the cheque payments made So however, there is no other evidence, namely, GRNs octroi receipts, delivery challans, etc which would show that the supplies were indeed made. Therefore, in such a situation, can the absence of cross-examination be fatal to the addition in question?, especially when at the initial stage, an opportunity

DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted. Considering the fact that I have accepted the LTCG by deleting the addition made under section 68, therefore the addition of alleged commission payment is also deleted. This ground of assessee is also allowed." 7. Considering the aforesaid observations and findings recorded by the Tribunal, we notice that the transaction of the assessee

RAISONI BAGRECHA DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-(25)(1), CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

income at Rs.68,61,732/- for AY 2015-16 and Rs. 1,04,00,363/- (comprising of bogus liability of Rs. 90,64,606 + purchase of Rs. 10,80,259 from undisclosed

RAISONI BAGRECHA DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-(25)(1), CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

income at Rs.68,61,732/- for AY 2015-16 and Rs. 1,04,00,363/- (comprising of bogus liability of Rs. 90,64,606 + purchase of Rs. 10,80,259 from undisclosed

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

undisclosed sources and unexplained credits in the books of the assessee. 9.9 The assessee has taken loans amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- is remained unexplained. Therefore, the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- is treated as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the Total Income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings are separately initiated

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

undisclosed income into its accounts, can be of no avail. The AO was required to prove this allegation. An allegation by itself which is based on assumption will not pass muster in law. The revenue authorities would be required to bridge the gap between the suspicions and proof in order to bring home this allegation". 10. There is no material

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

purchase and sale of share as sham transactions and sale proceeds of shares were treated as undisclosed income under section 68, since payments were received through account payee cheques and transactions were done through recognized stock exchange, and there was no evidence that assessee had paid cash in return of receipt through cheque Tribunal rightly deleted addition holding that transactions

NEENA KAILAS JADHAV,THANE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.901/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

bogus LTCG. 10. There is yet one more reason as to why I am inclined to confirm the addition made by Assessing Officer, in view of the well settled principle of law that fraud vitiate everything and even principle of natural justice have no application and such transaction is void ab initio. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

undisclosed income. If the assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received through the accounting year, the AO is entitled to draw an inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. Therefore, the burden of proving the source of such income is on the assessee. The assessee besides given ample time

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

undisclosed income. If the assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received through the accounting year, the AO is entitled to draw an inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. Therefore, the burden of proving the source of such income is on the assessee. The assessee besides given ample time

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

undisclosed income of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14. He accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.45,97,420/- by making addition of Rs.32,25,000/-. (Similar addition of Rs.99,70,152/- was made in assessment year 2014-15 and Rs.2,93,29,287/- in assessment year 2015-16). 4. In appeal